This is not a hate site

It may come as a surprise to some, but since we launched this blog almost a year ago, we have had only a handful of trolls who have tried to create noise, dissension and general upset.

This is possibly influenced by the long ago statements from Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder that this site is heavily censored and controlled (not actually true, but kept trolls from even trying). Or this is influenced by the high tone of the blog, which tends to reject entheta and attract theta.

The few trolls that have showed up attempt to hijack threads and spread generalities, attacking other persons commenting, or attacking the premise of the initial article and its author.

In total there would be only 4 or 5 times that we have actually knocked back comments, or censored in any way — until a few hours ago, when, for the first time, we blacklisted two individuals who had moved onto the blog to simply stir up contention and hate. One troll is from Los Angeles, and the other from England. Over the last few days they were specializing in generalities, invalidation and falsehoods. They seem to consider it their job and responsibility to try and disabuse other readers of their beliefs and reality of LRH and Scientology. Those comments have now been removed.

Our moderation policy has been simple, but never actually stated.

1. This blog is run by and for, a community of people who want to see that the LRH aims for Scientology are met. There is no affiliation or connection with the Church of Scientology — and our readers and contributors come from all walks of life and each have their own perspective and reality on LRH and on Scientology. We have people who have been excommunicated, persons who have been off-lines, and also persons who are “under the radar” and still in good standing. All are welcome to write articles and to post comments. In fact, any person is welcome to read and post on this blog — as long as they keep in mind this purpose and the audience .

2. This site is unquestionably “with LRH”, meaning that we will not tolerate generalities, attacks and natter about the man — which we have found, every time, is borne in ignorance or through false information provided by ‘sources’ that are themselves false.

3. This is not a hate site — and good manners and politeness are expected. No one expects that everyone agrees, as life is made of many different view points. But to be clear — this is an Open House, and persons who enter and then shit and vomit all over the carpet and guests, are escorted out. Just makes sense really. There are many places for people who are disgruntled, nattery, critical and in a games condition regarding the subject of Scientology. This site is not one of them.

4. The first few posts an individual submits only appear after a moderator has read them. That individual’s posts thereafter appear immediately as long as he respects the basic policies of the blog.

5. Posts which violate the basic policies of remaining on topic, being reasonable, and polite to authors and other posters, result in the poster being “put in the corner” – his or her posts are again screened before appearing.One can redeem oneself and be let out of the corner simply by following the basic protocols expected.

6. Posters who continuously violate policies are simply banned. Their posts are not even read for screening. We have only two of such persons to date.

The Supreme Court many years ago ruled that there is an enforceable legal difference between legitimate free speech, and intentional disruption. At a press conference, for example, a reporter may ask pertinent pointed questions, but he cannot ‘heckle’. One may write a critical review of a play or movie, but one cannot disrupt the audience.

The distinction is one of reason and judgment, with consideration for the rights of many to enjoy their thoughts and activities, peacefully and un-offended, compared to the rights of one or two to their right to express their opinions (even if worthless).

If someone gets the notion to “sing along” during a performance of one of Mozart’s operas, he may be asked to leave (regardless of his opinion as to the quality of his singing), or ejected with the use of necessary force, and he may not then charge those who ejected him with assault.

So to reiterate — this is not a hate site. This is a safe space for Scientologists and will continue to remain so.

Thank you to the vast number of well-intentioned, intelligent, honest, polite and communicative individuals that make up our audience and writers.

Related

29 thoughts on “This is not a hate site”

Bravo! While i have not seen, read or followed any of the posts you mention were posted on here recently, I do support the policies of the blog and the raison d’etre of the site wholeheartedly: a safe space for Scientologists.

Thank you for clarifying the house rules, and for reiterating the purpose of the blog, Lana.

I agree that there are all sorts of forums available for those who want to vent about LRH and the religion of Scientology, but not many that hold firm a safe space for those who still follow the tech in its original form.

Many of us who still call ourselves Scientologists, have extreme disagreements with the organization, but somehow we manage to communicate those disagreements without dumping on LRH or the tech.

Don’t we deserve safe environs to commiserate online? I think we do. Thank you for providing such a place for us.

Ronnie – Yes. In fact any group can censor speech to its tastes. It is only when the *government* censors free speech that it is illegal. It’s a subtle difference, between Big Citizen and Big Government, E.g. You can start a “Wonders of Cats” site and specifically and expressly exclude anyone who says they do not like cats, or prefers dogs, or has canaries and is afraid of cats, or whose great-aunt heard a bad story about a cat once, or even hints anything in the least little bit suspicious about cats, and you are within your rights to do so.

‘Nickname’, I never implied that any blog owner should censor the free and open discourse of those who participate, but it’s a fact that there are a great many blogs devoted to particular religions or sects where it’s rare to see posts directly attacking that religion, its practice, or its founder. It’s just as easy to find sites whose chief purpose is to pick apart or invalidate a certain religion.

In each case, it’s usually understood by the participants that the blog is either pro or con, and they tend to respect the guiding purpose the blog was established for.

With Scientology related blogs, I’ve found the usual rules of etiquette to be out the window. The commentary often runs the gamut of points of view, and seems to invite division and warfare between those posting. In my mind, that’s partially due to confusions and murkiness over where the blog owners stand in relation to LRH and the tech.

Some of them simply don’t make it known to one and all precisely where they stand, and what the overall direction of their blog is (besides their universal opposition to the RCS, which nearly everyone on the outside of the organization agrees with).

Anyway….not to get too long-winded with this, there’s nothing wrong with people of like mind having some sort of place where they can meet and share their thoughts without being put in a position to defend their personal convictions and realities at every turn. Nothing wrong with that at all.

As I said before, most people outside of the RCS have an innate sense of respect when they come upon a group of people who share a common religion, and don’t insist upon forcing their opposing views upon those people. I just think it would be nice for others to afford Scientologists the same degree of tolerance that they do with people of other faiths.

I definitely second that. Maybe it’s Aussie women? The Russian bear is not the men, it’s the women. So maybe “the women glow and the men thunder” is the same? Just speculating … facts are, Lana is doing a great job.

Thanks! I had a run-in with one of them. I had to deal with his snarky 1.1 comments in a way that was intelligent but would end cycle on his assertions. I would rather not but I couldn’t let his bluster go unchallenged.

Ron was a man and he wan’t perfect. But he wasn’t evil or a psychopath either.What he created — “Standard Tech” — is astounding. It’s nice I can go somewhere on the web that appreciates that.

The “indy” wars. Your comments about Mike and Marty are pretty funny. I’ve read what Marty has to say about his site. Typical Rathbun crap. Mike, I read his blog everyday. He’s pretty good, though he gets on a rant about “fundamentalism” every now then.

Pierre’s article is spot on. The attempt to Black PR those who adhere to KSW, is just that – Black PR, promulgated by those who didn’t and don’t keep Scientology working, and whose results with the materials sure do show that up.

Yep, I’m a “fundamentalist” allrighty. Paid my dues on Flag’s Internships, and through thousands of hours of application to earn that epithet. It goes right along with the Declare Order from Dave Miscavige, on my wall.

I first noted this Concept of “Fundamentalism” mentioned by Rinder in what appeared to connotate the CO$ membership’s blind adherence to Miscavige’s alterizations without parishioners’ personal inspections; to go along blindly with DM/RTC’s off-policy & out-tech activities, or to overtly disagree for fear of consequence. This also included those members who generally dealt in Scientology parrot-back cliche such as “That’s not OK”, “They’ve got overts”, “She pulled it in” as coined explanations to handle or control other people. There may be others, but this is what I had noted. It’s the “unthinking and blind compliance because the “Good Book”/DM/RTC says so”.

However, sometime later disagreements with policy & KSW started to surface as well and seemed to have been thrown into the above “Fundamentalism” mix muddying the waters. It appears, based on posts as such, unless you are also not welcoming other practices, you are a down-in-your-belt horse-blinded fundamentalist. I’d be happy to be corrected if I mis-assessed the above. Nonetheless, Scientology has not only taken me into vastly higher states of spiritual existence, but also improved my life a thousand-fold, so I could hardly be bothered with anyone’s F-drivel … lol.

Thank you, Lana, Of all of the facebook articles and posts from anywhere about Scientology I value yours the most because I can learn more about Scientology. I have studied a lot of self help stuff in my lifetime and Dianetics and Scientology are very good for me. Then there are some sites that just tell that someone got through their different levels on the way up their Bridge but those do not tell me anything that I can apply. I do appreciate the one lady who is making known the problems at the top of the Scientology “alleged” church. I think that info is good and helpful to many but the people who just toss a lot of crap/garbage in the air are not doing anyone a favor. And it makes Scientology look like it is worthless and the study a total scam. It is very discouraging to anyone who might need the help that Scientology has to offer.. I am not sure which facebook site had that terrible picture of a man with his finger through his nose to eye but it was gross to say the least. And it seems to be gone now. I was ready to drop that place because of that horrid picture. A person who would post something so ugly could not be up to anything worthwhile.Thank you for taking charge.

Have a great day,Eleanor Lebrecht910 Orlando Dr.Fort Wayne, IN 46825260-489-0322

Almost everyday I audit and all I get are wins and more wins and it is thanks to Ron! I have PCs asking “why isn’t everyone doing this?”Those who INSIST on invalidating Ron and the tech have nasty evil intentions.

I’ve been away for a while. Looks like I missed all the “fun”.
Anyhow, it is nice to have a place where one is able to say something complimentary LRH without someone sniping at me from the bushes. I don’t think that Ron was or is perfect. I doubt that even the Tech itself is perfect, otherwise there would be no room for improvement. But the things that LRH’s discovered and created are so breathtakingly amazing that it is unfair to criticize him, his writing style, or his work without keeping the reality of his accomplishments in perspective. To do so would amount to a false report because it would be an incomplete report.
As I once mentioned on one of the other blogs, it is fairly well documented Sir Isaac Newton behaved “strangely” at times and once had what we would call a psychotic break……so now what? Are we supposed to abolish the laws of physics and declare calculus to be bullshit?
In my reality Ron’s discoveries are a t l e a s t as stellar as Newton’s and he deserves comparable respect and consideration.

It is nice to have a place where it is perfectly safe to be a Scientologist.

And by the way, I think Mike Rinder does a decent job of that too. Although some of his posters sometimes take pot-shots at Ron or the Tech, I haven’t heard him do so. I have, however, heard him call such people out for showing disrespect for the viewpoints of those who like Scientology or the subject itself.

But Milestone Two is down-right cozy for a Scientologist.
Thanks for being here!

I appreciate your site Lana and the posts are interesting and refreshing. Thank you for laying out the rules clearly. I really don’t care to hear the haters try to enforce their viewpoints on everyone else around them on this site. You are right, there are plenty of other sites for them to go spew their hate to others of their mindset. Thank you!

If for no other reason than the existence of the Tech, we owe LRH our respect. And you don’t talk about someone you respect the way I’ve seen many blogs talk about LRH. We owe LRH a near eternal debt for what he left us. Manners alone dictate that we at least speak of Ron respectfully. I’m glad to be with a group of people who understand that. Thanks, Lana.

What a world! Thank you Lana and all the rest of you who are intent on keeping the tech standard. I’ve found pages and groups on facebook that claim to be devoted to Scientology, and I think only one or two actually are. The others seem to be run by a – please forgive the word – conspiracy of individuals bent on bringing down the religion, under the auspices of bringing down the church. It looks to me as if these people have sort of set themselves up as ex-church celebs, that is, they’ve used their leaving the church as a means of gaining celebrity. They are “experts” on the subject. They write books about it and give interviews to the media. I bet one or two of these guys are making pretty good money as “experts” on Scientology. I’m not going to name names because I might be wrong. I’m just saying how it looks to me right now. These “names” attract a lot of people like me who are recently out of the church, and they manage to make it seem as if the entire independent field, or whatever it is we call ourselves, has gone reasonable about the tech, and that this reasonableness is somehow the correct line of approach to the tech. These “Scientologists” are very open about disagreeing with the tech and wanting to alter it. They’re not Scientologists. I guess I just want to say (giving my age away), “It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack,” and thank you Lana for doing what you do. Much love…

Popular Articles

Search by Topic, Author or Tags

Search

Article topic listing

Article topic listing

What is Milestone Two?

Milestone Two is a community of people who want to see that the LRH aims for Scientology are met.

There is no affiliation or connection with the Church of Scientology -- as Milestone Two operates wholly separate from such. In fact, the majority of Milestone Two's members are people who have been excommunicated by the Church of Scientology, or persons that have departed and are practicing Scientology outside of the Church. Many members are anonymous and provide their support for ongoing projects while still "under the radar".

You can get more details on Milestone Two at www.milestonetwo.org.

This blog and its articles are just a snap shot of the views and activities of Milestone Two members.